Re: In Defense of Penrose. That everybody --including materialists, empiricists and rationalists--is a Platonist
On 16 Jun 2013, at 19:23, meekerdb wrote: On 6/16/2013 12:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Jun 2013, at 21:57, meekerdb wrote: On 6/15/2013 12:40 AM, chris peck wrote: Hi Rog As you have described them a materialist could not be a combination of both rationalism and empiricism, because you have them as diametrically opposed. If reason alone is the source of knowledge, then experience isn't and can't be combined to be. Besides, Materialism is an ontological theory and doesn't give much of a hoot about how knowledge is aquired. More to the point neither rationalism nor empiricism are branches of intuitionism. Chris Peck is right here. The moment of inspiration Penrose attributes to the mind connecting with a realm of ideas is neither an act of reason nor sensory experience. Moreover, If logic is to be deductive then, by definition, conclusions must never follow from unexplainable leaps of intuition. Where does the persuasive power of logic come from? Why do you believe, Either X or not-X is true? Is it not a matter of intuition? Yes, but not in the sense of the intuitionist. Isn't logic just an attempt to formalize intuitive reasoning. Only reasoning, where the intuition is used only in the choice of the axiom, and not in the reasoning. Why not in the rules of inference too? Rejecting non-constructive proofs is a change in reasoning. I don't think there is such a sharp division between axioms and rules of inference as you imply. I did not imply that. In most system, you can always limit the rules of inference by adding axioms. With enough axioms, and the modus ponens rule, you can derive all the other rules of inference. In particular, quantum logic, intuitionist logic and classical logic can be all formalized with only the modus ponens rules, and with the same rules for the quantifiers, just by suppressing some axioms in the Kleene's presentation of classical logic. You get quantum logic by replacing p-(q-p) by (p-q) - (r-t) - (p - q) (limiting the a posteriori-axiom for implicative formula); you get intuitionist logic by abandoning ~~p - p. Bruno Brent Basically intuitionism reject the idea that there is an independent reality such that A v ~A applies to it. They accept only ~ ~(A V ~A). If we limit reality to sigma_1 truth, like in the comp TOE, there is no genuine difference between intuitionism and platonism. But an intuitionist should still say no to the doctor, as the FPI is not constructive. Washington V Moscow needs a non-intuitionist OR. Bruno Brent If they do they have not been logically deduced, have they? And infact that is Penrose's point : leaps of intuition can not be modelled computationally. logic, ofcourse, can be. since, allegedly, minds can grope for and master facts beyond the scope of deduction, they must be qualitatively different from computer programs which can only deduce things logically. You really seem to have things back to front in this post. Regards -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: In Defense of Penrose. That everybody --including materialists, empiricists and rationalists--is a Platonist
On 15 Jun 2013, at 21:57, meekerdb wrote: On 6/15/2013 12:40 AM, chris peck wrote: Hi Rog As you have described them a materialist could not be a combination of both rationalism and empiricism, because you have them as diametrically opposed. If reason alone is the source of knowledge, then experience isn't and can't be combined to be. Besides, Materialism is an ontological theory and doesn't give much of a hoot about how knowledge is aquired. More to the point neither rationalism nor empiricism are branches of intuitionism. Chris Peck is right here. The moment of inspiration Penrose attributes to the mind connecting with a realm of ideas is neither an act of reason nor sensory experience. Moreover, If logic is to be deductive then, by definition, conclusions must never follow from unexplainable leaps of intuition. Where does the persuasive power of logic come from? Why do you believe, Either X or not-X is true? Is it not a matter of intuition? Yes, but not in the sense of the intuitionist. Isn't logic just an attempt to formalize intuitive reasoning. Only reasoning, where the intuition is used only in the choice of the axiom, and not in the reasoning. Basically intuitionism reject the idea that there is an independent reality such that A v ~A applies to it. They accept only ~ ~(A V ~A). If we limit reality to sigma_1 truth, like in the comp TOE, there is no genuine difference between intuitionism and platonism. But an intuitionist should still say no to the doctor, as the FPI is not constructive. Washington V Moscow needs a non-intuitionist OR. Bruno Brent If they do they have not been logically deduced, have they? And infact that is Penrose's point : leaps of intuition can not be modelled computationally. logic, ofcourse, can be. since, allegedly, minds can grope for and master facts beyond the scope of deduction, they must be qualitatively different from computer programs which can only deduce things logically. You really seem to have things back to front in this post. Regards -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: In Defense of Penrose. That everybody --including materialists, empiricists and rationalists--is a Platonist
On 15 Jun 2013, at 22:29, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: It would be nice if it somehow was programable (I think) since we could make things better, as well as destroy everything. We are not programmable by us, but comp just say that we are Turing emulable at some level (and we cannot know-for-sure what that level is). But what is new about that? Do you thus, give this person any creedence then, or not really? http://www.onbeing.org/program/uncovering-codes-reality/feature/symbols-power-adinkras-and-nature-reality/1460 Sincerely, I am a machine === whatever is not me is not a machine. This is not obvious to prove. It does not follow from simple logic, but from the FPI (first person indeterminacy). See UDA 1-7, perhaps. Don't confuse the thesis that we are machine (comp), and that the physical universe is a machine, as they are incompatible. Now if the universe is a machine, we are machine, but that is impossible (by UDA) so the physical universe cannot be a machine (with or without comp). Bruno Mitch -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Jun 15, 2013 2:48 pm Subject: Re: In Defense of Penrose. That everybody --including materialists, empiricists and rationalists--is a Platonist On 15 Jun 2013, at 16:33, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: I wonder if a more precise way of stating this is to say, that like Platonism, there must be an underlying programming to the cosmos. That would cover the Idealism central feature. Arithmetical realism entails the the experienceable cosmos *cannot* be programmed, as it emerges from a sort of competitions between all digital approximations of it. Bruno -Original Message- From: chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Jun 15, 2013 3:40 am Subject: RE: In Defense of Penrose. That everybody --including materialists, empiricists and rationalists--is a Platonist Hi Rog As you have described them a materialist could not be a combination of both rationalism and empiricism, because you have them as diametrically opposed. If reason alone is the source of knowledge, then experience isn't and can't be combined to be. Besides, Materialism is an ontological theory and doesn't give much of a hoot about how knowledge is aquired. More to the point neither rationalism nor empiricism are branches of intuitionism. The moment of inspiration Penrose attributes to the mind connecting with a realm of ideas is neither an act of reason nor sensory experience. Moreover, If logic is to be deductive then, by definition, conclusions must never follow from unexplainable leaps of intuition. If they do they have not been logically deduced, have they? And infact that is Penrose's point : leaps of intuition can not be modelled computationally. logic, ofcourse, can be. since, allegedly, minds can grope for and master facts beyond the scope of deduction, they must be qualitatively different from computer programs which can only deduce things logically. You really seem to have things back to front in this post. Regards --- Original Message --- From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Sent: 15 June 2013 1:47 AM To: - Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Subject: In Defense of Penrose. That everybody --including materialists, empiricists and rationalists--is a Platonist In Defense of Penrose. That everybody --including materialists, empiricists and rationalists--is a Platonist Empiricism is the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from sense experience. Rationalism is the doctrine that reason alone is a source of knowledge and is independent of experience. Materialism is a combination of both philosophies. These may sound like completely diffierent doctrines, but my point here is that all of these pursuits ultimately rely on intuition. They afre both subbranches of intjuitionism. Why ? Concerning rationalism, even deductive logic requires intuition to arrive at a conclusilon. Concering empiricism, it is fairly obvious to see that experience alone cannot provide us any conclusion. If you dpoubt that, consider Peirce's three categories, in which Secondness is the category of intuion, leading us from an experience to a fact. So Penrose's recent excursion into Platonism should be taken more seriously, for ultimately his criticizers, the empiricists and the rationalists, are both Platonists. Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/14/2013 See my Leibniz site at http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at
Re: In Defense of Penrose. That everybody --including materialists, empiricists and rationalists--is a Platonist
On 6/16/2013 12:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Jun 2013, at 21:57, meekerdb wrote: On 6/15/2013 12:40 AM, chris peck wrote: Hi Rog As you have described them a materialist could not be a combination of both rationalism and empiricism, because you have them as diametrically opposed. If reason alone is the source of knowledge, then experience isn't and can't be combined to be. Besides, Materialism is an ontological theory and doesn't give much of a hoot about how knowledge is aquired. More to the point neither rationalism nor empiricism are branches of intuitionism. Chris Peck is right here. The moment of inspiration Penrose attributes to the mind connecting with a realm of ideas is neither an act of reason nor sensory experience. Moreover, If logic is to be deductive then, by definition, conclusions must never follow from unexplainable leaps of intuition. Where does the persuasive power of logic come from? Why do you believe, Either X or not-X is true? Is it not a matter of intuition? Yes, but not in the sense of the intuitionist. Isn't logic just an attempt to formalize intuitive reasoning. Only reasoning, where the intuition is used only in the choice of the axiom, and not in the reasoning. Why not in the rules of inference too? Rejecting non-constructive proofs is a change in reasoning. I don't think there is such a sharp division between axioms and rules of inference as you imply. Brent Basically intuitionism reject the idea that there is an independent reality such that A v ~A applies to it. They accept only ~ ~(A V ~A). If we limit reality to sigma_1 truth, like in the comp TOE, there is no genuine difference between intuitionism and platonism. But an intuitionist should still say no to the doctor, as the FPI is not constructive. Washington V Moscow needs a non-intuitionist OR. Bruno Brent If they do they have not been logically deduced, have they? And infact that is Penrose's point : leaps of intuition can not be modelled computationally. logic, ofcourse, can be. since, allegedly, minds can grope for and master facts beyond the scope of deduction, they must be qualitatively different from computer programs which can only deduce things logically. You really seem to have things back to front in this post. Regards -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: In Defense of Penrose. That everybody --including materialists, empiricists and rationalists--is a Platonist
Hi Rog As you have described them a materialist could not be a combination of both rationalism and empiricism, because you have them as diametrically opposed. If reason alone is the source of knowledge, then experience isn't and can't be combined to be. Besides, Materialism is an ontological theory and doesn't give much of a hoot about how knowledge is aquired. More to the point neither rationalism nor empiricism are branches of intuitionism. The moment of inspiration Penrose attributes to the mind connecting with a realm of ideas is neither an act of reason nor sensory experience. Moreover, If logic is to be deductive then, by definition, conclusions must never follow from unexplainable leaps of intuition. If they do they have not been logically deduced, have they? And infact that is Penrose's point : leaps of intuition can not be modelled computationally. logic, ofcourse, can be. since, allegedly, minds can grope for and master facts beyond the scope of deduction, they must be qualitatively different from computer programs which can only deduce things logically. You really seem to have things back to front in this post. Regards --- Original Message --- From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Sent: 15 June 2013 1:47 AM To: - Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Subject: In Defense of Penrose. That everybody --including materialists, empiricists and rationalists--is a Platonist In Defense of Penrose. That everybody --including materialists, empiricists and rationalists--is a Platonist Empiricism is the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from sense experience. Rationalism is the doctrine that reason alone is a source of knowledge and is independent of experience. Materialism is a combination of both philosophies. These may sound like completely diffierent doctrines, but my point here is that all of these pursuits ultimately rely on intuition. They afre both subbranches of intjuitionism. Why ? Concerning rationalism, even deductive logic requires intuition to arrive at a conclusilon. Concering empiricism, it is fairly obvious to see that experience alone cannot provide us any conclusion. If you dpoubt that, consider Peirce's three categories, in which Secondness is the category of intuion, leading us from an experience to a fact. So Penrose's recent excursion into Platonism should be taken more seriously, for ultimately his criticizers, the empiricists and the rationalists, are both Platonists. Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/14/2013 See my Leibniz site at http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: In Defense of Penrose. That everybody --including materialists, empiricists and rationalists--is a Platonist
I wonder if a more precise way of stating this is to say, that like Platonism, there must be an underlying programming to the cosmos. That would cover the Idealism central feature. -Original Message- From: chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Jun 15, 2013 3:40 am Subject: RE: In Defense of Penrose. That everybody --including materialists, empiricists and rationalists--is a Platonist Hi Rog As you have described them a materialist could not be a combination of both rationalism and empiricism, because you have them as diametrically opposed. If reason alone is the source of knowledge, then experience isn't and can't be combined to be. Besides, Materialism is an ontological theory and doesn't give much of a hoot about how knowledge is aquired. More to the point neither rationalism nor empiricism are branches of intuitionism. The moment of inspiration Penrose attributes to the mind connecting with a realm of ideas is neither an act of reason nor sensory experience. Moreover, If logic is to be deductive then, by definition, conclusions must never follow from unexplainable leaps of intuition. If they do they have not been logically deduced, have they? And infact that is Penrose's point : leaps of intuition can not be modelled computationally. logic, ofcourse, can be. since, allegedly, minds can grope for and master facts beyond the scope of deduction, they must be qualitatively different from computer programs which can only deduce things logically. You really seem to have things back to front in this post. Regards --- Original Message --- From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Sent: 15 June 2013 1:47 AM To: - Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Subject: In Defense of Penrose. That everybody --including materialists, empiricists and rationalists--is a Platonist In Defense of Penrose. That everybody --including materialists, empiricists and rationalists--is a Platonist Empiricism is the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from sense experience. Rationalism is the doctrine that reason alone is a source of knowledge and is independent of experience. Materialism is a combination of both philosophies. These may sound like completely diffierent doctrines, but my point here is that all of these pursuits ultimately rely on intuition. They afre both subbranches of intjuitionism. Why ? Concerning rationalism, even deductive logic requires intuition to arrive at a conclusilon. Concering empiricism, it is fairly obvious to see that experience alone cannot provide us any conclusion. If you dpoubt that, consider Peirce's three categories, in which Secondness is the category of intuion, leading us from an experience to a fact. So Penrose's recent excursion into Platonism should be taken more seriously, for ultimately his criticizers, the empiricists and the rationalists, are both Platonists. Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/14/2013 See my Leibniz site at http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: In Defense of Penrose. That everybody --including materialists, empiricists and rationalists--is a Platonist
On 15 Jun 2013, at 16:33, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: I wonder if a more precise way of stating this is to say, that like Platonism, there must be an underlying programming to the cosmos. That would cover the Idealism central feature. Arithmetical realism entails the the experienceable cosmos *cannot* be programmed, as it emerges from a sort of competitions between all digital approximations of it. Bruno -Original Message- From: chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Jun 15, 2013 3:40 am Subject: RE: In Defense of Penrose. That everybody --including materialists, empiricists and rationalists--is a Platonist Hi Rog As you have described them a materialist could not be a combination of both rationalism and empiricism, because you have them as diametrically opposed. If reason alone is the source of knowledge, then experience isn't and can't be combined to be. Besides, Materialism is an ontological theory and doesn't give much of a hoot about how knowledge is aquired. More to the point neither rationalism nor empiricism are branches of intuitionism. The moment of inspiration Penrose attributes to the mind connecting with a realm of ideas is neither an act of reason nor sensory experience. Moreover, If logic is to be deductive then, by definition, conclusions must never follow from unexplainable leaps of intuition. If they do they have not been logically deduced, have they? And infact that is Penrose's point : leaps of intuition can not be modelled computationally. logic, ofcourse, can be. since, allegedly, minds can grope for and master facts beyond the scope of deduction, they must be qualitatively different from computer programs which can only deduce things logically. You really seem to have things back to front in this post. Regards --- Original Message --- From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Sent: 15 June 2013 1:47 AM To: - Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Subject: In Defense of Penrose. That everybody --including materialists, empiricists and rationalists--is a Platonist In Defense of Penrose. That everybody --including materialists, empiricists and rationalists--is a Platonist Empiricism is the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from sense experience. Rationalism is the doctrine that reason alone is a source of knowledge and is independent of experience. Materialism is a combination of both philosophies. These may sound like completely diffierent doctrines, but my point here is that all of these pursuits ultimately rely on intuition. They afre both subbranches of intjuitionism. Why ? Concerning rationalism, even deductive logic requires intuition to arrive at a conclusilon. Concering empiricism, it is fairly obvious to see that experience alone cannot provide us any conclusion. If you dpoubt that, consider Peirce's three categories, in which Secondness is the category of intuion, leading us from an experience to a fact. So Penrose's recent excursion into Platonism should be taken more seriously, for ultimately his criticizers, the empiricists and the rationalists, are both Platonists. Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/14/2013 See my Leibniz site at http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group
Re: In Defense of Penrose. That everybody --including materialists, empiricists and rationalists--is a Platonist
On 6/15/2013 12:40 AM, chris peck wrote: Hi Rog As you have described them a materialist could not be a combination of both rationalism and empiricism, because you have them as diametrically opposed. If reason alone is the source of knowledge, then experience isn't and can't be combined to be. Besides, Materialism is an ontological theory and doesn't give much of a hoot about how knowledge is aquired. More to the point neither rationalism nor empiricism are branches of intuitionism. The moment of inspiration Penrose attributes to the mind connecting with a realm of ideas is neither an act of reason nor sensory experience. Moreover, If logic is to be deductive then, by definition, conclusions must never follow from unexplainable leaps of intuition. Where does the persuasive power of logic come from? Why do you believe, Either X or not-X is true? Is it not a matter of intuition? Isn't logic just an attempt to formalize intuitive reasoning. Brent If they do they have not been logically deduced, have they? And infact that is Penrose's point : leaps of intuition can not be modelled computationally. logic, ofcourse, can be. since, allegedly, minds can grope for and master facts beyond the scope of deduction, they must be qualitatively different from computer programs which can only deduce things logically. You really seem to have things back to front in this post. Regards -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: In Defense of Penrose. That everybody --including materialists, empiricists and rationalists--is a Platonist
It would be nice if it somehow was programable (I think) since we could make things better, as well as destroy everything. But what is new about that? Do you thus, give this person any creedence then, or not really? http://www.onbeing.org/program/uncovering-codes-reality/feature/symbols-power-adinkras-and-nature-reality/1460 Sincerely, Mitch -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Jun 15, 2013 2:48 pm Subject: Re: In Defense of Penrose. That everybody --including materialists, empiricists and rationalists--is a Platonist On 15 Jun 2013, at 16:33, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: I wonder if a more precise way of stating this is to say, that like Platonism, there must be an underlying programming to the cosmos. That would cover the Idealism central feature. Arithmetical realism entails the the experienceable cosmos *cannot* be programmed, as it emerges from a sort of competitions between all digital approximations of it. Bruno -Original Message- From: chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Jun 15, 2013 3:40 am Subject: RE: In Defense of Penrose. That everybody --including materialists, empiricists and rationalists--is a Platonist Hi Rog As you have described them a materialist could not be a combination of both rationalism and empiricism, because you have them as diametrically opposed. If reason alone is the source of knowledge, then experience isn't and can't be combined to be. Besides, Materialism is an ontological theory and doesn't give much of a hoot about how knowledge is aquired. More to the point neither rationalism nor empiricism are branches of intuitionism. The moment of inspiration Penrose attributes to the mind connecting with a realm of ideas is neither an act of reason nor sensory experience. Moreover, If logic is to be deductive then, by definition, conclusions must never follow from unexplainable leaps of intuition. If they do they have not been logically deduced, have they? And infact that is Penrose's point : leaps of intuition can not be modelled computationally. logic, ofcourse, can be. since, allegedly, minds can grope for and master facts beyond the scope of deduction, they must be qualitatively different from computer programs which can only deduce things logically. You really seem to have things back to front in this post. Regards --- Original Message --- From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Sent: 15 June 2013 1:47 AM To: - Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Subject: In Defense of Penrose. That everybody --including materialists, empiricists and rationalists--is a Platonist In Defense of Penrose. That everybody --including materialists, empiricists and rationalists--is a Platonist Empiricism is the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from sense experience. Rationalism is the doctrine that reason alone is a source of knowledge and is independent of experience. Materialism is a combination of both philosophies. These may sound like completely diffierent doctrines, but my point here is that all of these pursuits ultimately rely on intuition. They afre both subbranches of intjuitionism. Why ? Concerning rationalism, even deductive logic requires intuition to arrive at a conclusilon. Concering empiricism, it is fairly obvious to see that experience alone cannot provide us any conclusion. If you dpoubt that, consider Peirce's three categories, in which Secondness is the category of intuion, leading us from an experience to a fact. So Penrose's recent excursion into Platonism should be taken more seriously, for ultimately his criticizers, the empiricists and the rationalists, are both Platonists. Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/14/2013 See my Leibniz site at http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
